From Mike Rinder's Thursday Funnies: http://www.mikerindersblog.org/thursday-funnies-14/
Not really getting this one as Scientologists will never sue each other as long as they are Scientologists. Seems they sneaked that qualifier in there. The only way this goes wrong is in a company assuming another is a Scientologist. Am I missing something?
Exhibit One For Next Lawsuit
The next time an employee sues a “scientology company” for forcing therm to take scientology courses, this can be exhibit 1.
Well, Mike's post assumes that an employee does sue -- which has happened in the past.Not really getting this one as Scientologists will never sue each other as long as they are Scientologists. Seems they sneaked that qualifier in there. The only way this goes wrong is in a company assuming another is a Scientologist. Am I missing something?
Well, Mike's post assumes that an employee does sue -- which has happened in the past.
If an employee does sue, there are two possibilities.
First, the employee is, or at least was, a Scientologist. Even if so, an employer cannot coerce an employee to participate in religious services even if the employer and the employee share the same religion. A Catholic employer cannot coerce a Catholic employee to participate in Mass as a condition of employment. Likewise, A Scientologist employer cannot coerce a Scientologist employee to participate in Scientology religious courses or auditing as a condition of employment.
Second, the employee is not a Scientologist. You note the qualifying language "who are Scientologists." Still, in this case the non-Scientologist employee can argue that the employer was illegally trying to force his "Scientologist" employees to participate in Scientology religious services, and he was pressured to both join the Church of Scientology and participate in order to improve the "stats" of his Scientologist in the official Church of Scientology "game."
The bottom line is that one can use the promo to argue that the Church of Scientology is promoting and encouraging illegal conduct by employers who are Scientologists. Such illegal behavior can victimize employees who are Scientologists who do not want to participate in Scientology religious services, as well as non-Scientologist employees who feel pressured to join the Church of Scientology and participate in such services.
Think of a plaintiff like the Garcias. Somebody who is a Scientologist, gets fed up, leaves, and then sues for the damage they suffered while in.I suppose. It would have had more heft if they hadn't added the line, "who are Scientologists". Just my opinion. I don't think it would hold up as any kind of exhibit, that's all I'm saying. They would just point to the line that said, "who are Scientologists" and totally skate right out of it. Anyhoo, no biggie.
Think of a plaintiff like the Garcias. Somebody who is a Scientologist, gets fed up, leaves, and then sues for the damage they suffered while in.
As I indicated above, such a person could sue the employer (or former employer) on the grounds that, yes at the time of the "game" they were a Scientologist just like thieir employer, but they were pressured into taking Scientology religious courses and services as a condition of employment that they did NOT want to take. I think they would have a strong case. I also think the promo would, indeed, be an excellent Exhibit No. 1.
Oh you gotta show this one from that page. Remember this is an official cult image and is probably the best one they have from the shoot!
It looks like the NOI have some competition in the enforcement business.
Wow! What a terrible picture. So overweight and slovenly, such unhappy faces. This is the chosen image for IAS? Seriously?
I would have used it as the before shot for The Biggest Loser.